Bin Laden (a.k.a. CIA asset “Tim Osman”) Speaks from Grave

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Griff

 

Do what I did. Look for it. I posted the link to it many months ago on ATS. Of course, as always, you will find some reason why to argue that the people at MIT are wrong.

You found the structural documentation? Please provide proof of such. Until then, good day to you.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
his organization bombed the WTC in 1993,

You forgot to mention that the FBI had an Egyption informant that the FBI was supposedly going to give fake explosives to. They F*ed that one up too. Coincidence?

Seems like our FBI, CIA and NSA can't do their jobs.

BTW, our inside agent recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with the FBI. So don't try and deny it.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I maintain avionics systems on F-16s.

So, you admit that your job requires you to maintain war machines. I wonder how I got the impression that you had a vested interest in war and defense?

I am tired of being insulted by people like you.

Truth hurts huh?

BTW, as much as you hate me, I wish you all the best in Iraq and elsewhere you serve and thank you for your service.

But, don't get all pissy when pointed out that you do indeed have a vested interest in all this.

reply to post by Griff


First off, I dont hate anyone. Does not mean I do not get tired of your continued insults. Yes, I fix military aircraft, I have for 21 years now. Whether at home or deployed, its my job and wont really change if we were at peace or at war. Its not a "vested interest".

If you truly believe that if the US dismantled its military, everything would be peaceful, then you are beyond help. We gutted our military in the early 90s...and see where it got us.

As for the MIT report, its been posted on ATS, do some research and find it.

So where did gutting our military in the 90's get us? Are you saying that is what caused 9/11? We didn't gut our CIA and FBI, and they were the ones who dropped the ball. The FBI was involved in the '93 WTC attack, as Griff previously pointed out. No terrorist attacks were because of our "gutted" military and I'm surprised Swamp you are blaming them for the failures of the CIA, FBI and NSA. If you were implying something else, please clarify. War and the threat of war doesn't equal peace. Threat of war gets war response. War doesn't equal peace. In fact, they are opposites.

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
So where did gutting our military in the 90's get us? Are you saying that is what caused 9/11? We didn't gut our CIA and FBI, and they were the ones who dropped the ball. The FBI was involved in the '93 WTC attack, as Griff previously pointed out. No terrorist attacks were because of our "gutted" military and I'm surprised Swamp you are blaming them for the failures of the CIA, FBI and NSA. If you were implying something else, please clarify. War and the threat of war doesn't equal peace. Threat of war gets war response. War doesn't equal peace. In fact, they are opposites.

Were any troofers alive in the 80s and 90s? No, the military isnt to blame for 9/11. But in the 80s, if you were a terrorist and you decided to screw with the US, we (the military) came looking for you, not the FBI. Sometimes it made the news, most times it did not. Terrorists just disappeared. In the 90s, we lost a lot of our abilities..thanks to the politicians. When they got through, we had less than a quarter of our ready continental air defense units. Special Forces got downsized. Then Bill Clinton decided that our response to terrorism was going to be law enforcement. I wont even begin to debate his dumbass decision to direct the US Navy to start refueling in foreign ports.

Our enemies (osama) saw this as weakness on the part of the Great Satan. They took full advantage of our weaknesses and we were not ready for it.

Is that clear enough? Or do I need to break out the crayons?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes, I fix military aircraft, I have for 21 years now. Whether at home or deployed, its my job and wont really change if we were at peace or at war. Its not a "vested interest".

Won't really change?

The defense budget in the 90's:

Department of Defense lacks a strategy for '90s; budget cuts, troop reductions and redeployments will have a profound effect on military, suppliers. (speech by former assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb)

findarticles.com...

Defense budget FY 2000:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET FOR FY 2001
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released details of President Clinton's Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 defense budget. The budget requests $291.1 billion in budget authority and $277.5 billion in outlays for the Department of Defense (DoD).

Secretary Cohen stressed that the budget protects the President's commitment to preserving America's military excellence. Last year President Clinton allocated to DoD an added $112 billion for FY 2000-2005. In the new budget that commitment is reinforced by more added funding -- $4.8 billion in FY 2001, primarily for operations in Bosnia and Kosovo and for higher fuel costs. DoD budget authority real growth exceeds 1 percent in FY 2001.

www.fas.org...

Defense Budget in 2007:

For 2007, the budget rose to US$439.3 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (~$33.2 billion) or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007).[2] Conversely, the military budget does allocate money for dual-use items, such as the development of infrastructure surrounding U.S. military bases. Altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah, no vested interest to have a boogie man to protect us against. Give me a fraking break.

If you truly believe that if the US dismantled its military, everything would be peaceful, then you are beyond help. We gutted our military in the early 90s...and see where it got us.

When did I say defense wasn't needed? All I'm saying is you work in the defense/war industry and are complaining when we point out that you have a vested interest in said industry.

As for the MIT report, its been posted on ATS, do some research and find it.

I didn't ask for their report. I asked for the proof that these students were given the needed structural documentation to do their study. When NIST had to obtain them through subpoena, you are going to claim they were freely given to MIT students and faculty for their analysis? I beg to differ.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


For someone who gets "tired of being insulted", you sure do pour on the insults.

Were any troofers alive in the 80s and 90s?

Or do I need to break out the crayons?

Maybe people with such thin skin shouldn't be throwing rocks?

Yeah, no vested interest to have a boogie man to protect us against. Give me a fraking break.

And I was still employed back in the mid 90s when there wasnt 'a boogie man' Except, as we all know now, there was a gentleman watching everything we did and biding his time.

I didn't ask for their report. I asked for the proof that these students were given the needed structural documentation to do their study. When NIST had to obtain them through subpoena, you are going to claim they were freely given to MIT students and faculty for their analysis? I beg to differ.

PhD's asked to work on the investigation.....not students.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]

Maybe people with such thin skin shouldn't be throwing rocks?

Thin skin? Nah...reached the threshold of my tolerance for idiotic statements.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
PhD's asked to work on the investigation.....not students.

And this proves that they used the structural documentation how exactly?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Actually Swamp, not that it is relevant to the discussion, but yes I was around for the 80's and I was here for the 70's too. It's funny that you say our lack of military caused the attacks, because it's our military presence and our intervening in their countries that are to blame for the attacks. It still seems as though you are somehow blaming the military for the attacks. I blame foreign policy and Israel, but I also have blame for others who use these people's hatred (due to our meddling in their business) to carry out these attacks. Have you ever ask yourself why these people hate us? Have you ever come to any other conclusion than they hate our freedoms?

Excellent post Griff regarding the defense budget. I guess $291 billion isn't enough to keep us safe from those terrorists. $291 f'n billion, and some are whining that we don't spend enough to keep us safe. I believe we overspend. We don't need Homeland Security, we need to get the f out of their countries and use our money for the health, education and energy for Americans.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And I was still employed back in the mid 90s when there wasnt 'a boogie man' Except, as we all know now, there was a gentleman watching everything we did and biding his time.

Are you saying that in the 90's there were just as many F-16's to work on as there are today?

Face it. You can't be impartial when it comes to the defense of our country. As shown by your statements of "Clinton reduced the military and see where that got us" prove this.

Why is this so hard to accept?

reply to post by RomanMaroni


Then all I can do is suggest you take a reading comprehension class. Because if you cannot understand that the way the politicians cut the military and the way the politicians decided to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter is what made us more vulnerable then its pointless to talk to you about it.

reply to post by Griff


No, I said that Bill Clinton decided that terrorism was going to be a law enforcement matter. Whats so hard to understand about that?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


So you are saying that the terrorists realized that we cut our defense budget down to the low low of $291 billion and said, "Okay now they're vulnerable. Let's get em." Actually Swamp, maybe you should look into taking advantage of the GI bill, and get yourself some classes. You said the reason we have the mess we have today is because our defense budget was basically gutted. The mess we have today is the Iraq war, Afghanistan War as the result of 9/11. The CIA's budget has done nothing but increase. The CIA is responsible for counter terrorism info. Gutting the military had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Iraq, and had nothing to do with Bin Laden. The CIA didn't seem to know anything and the FBI couldn't seem to notice the terrorists right under their noses. All this despite a $290 billion budget.Your answer: more spending for the military. And you say I have comprehension problems.

I want extremely less spending on the military. I'm not scared. I live in American and here we are the home of the BRAVE, not the home of the please spend us into bankruptcy on more incompetency so I can feel safe. I refuse to sacrifice my liberty for the false sense of security. I have already seen what my government can do with a $290 billion budget, and that was absolutely nothing.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by RomanMaroni]

reply to post by RomanMaroni

So you are saying that the terrorists realized that we cut our defense budget down to the low low of $291 billion and said, "Okay now they're venerable. Let's get em."

And hes still not getting it.

Actually Swamp, maybe you should look into taking advantage of the GI bill, and get yourself some classes. You said the reason we have the mess we have today is because our defense budget was basically gutted.

Yes, GI Bill helped me get my degree. On the other part, you are partly right, but still not understanding.

Gutting the military had nothing to do with 9/11

Then you need to do some more research. Had we had the type of air defense set up that we had in the 60s-80s in place on 9/11, things would have been a bit different that day.

All this despite a $290 billion budget

Which compared to past budgets was a pittance.

Your answer: more spending for the military.

Which in turn means 48-60 fully armed interceptors on alert for air defense....instead of the 14 partially armed ones we had on 9/11.

I want extremely less spending on the military.

Im not surprised...those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I'm not scared.

You dont have to be scared to get your ass handed to you.

not the home of the please spend us into bankruptcy on more incompetency

So, how do you feel about social programs then?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Which in turn means 48-60 fully armed interceptors on alert for air defense....instead of the 14 partially armed ones we had on 9/11.

We only had 14 because the others were too busy with Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and the National Reconnaissance Office's war games. It was not the military budget that allowed those jets to not be intercepted, it was the confusion of the wargames in play.

No, we had fourteen on alert status period. Alert aircraft do not get sent off for training. Fourteen was the number before those exercises started and fourteen was the number on alert on 9/11.